Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/python-extras.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/python-extras-0.0.3-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: extras is a set of extensions to the Python standard library, originally written to make the code within testtools cleaner, but now split out for general use outside of a testing context. Fedora Account System Username: salimma
Please remove the upstream provided egginfo so that it gets rebuilt. See the packaging guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT The initial cleaning of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is obsolete, unless you want to provide a package for EPEL5. In this case, you have to add some more stuff (BuildRoot tag, %clean section): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging
Issues, in no particular order: 1. Why is the python3 build disabled by default? I'm curious, because I already have a package I want to build for Fedora that will need the python3 version of extras. 2. The fedora-review complaint about the BR is because you used the name "python-devel" instead of "python2-devel". I'm not sure it matters. 3. As already noted, please remove the existing Python egg in %prep. 4. Consider adding a %check script 5. Consider preserving timestamps on the files with shebang changes (in %prep). Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/958344-python-extras/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [!]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-extras-0.0.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python-extras.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US testtools -> test tools, test-tools, stools 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-extras python-extras.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US testtools -> test tools, test-tools, stools 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-extras (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-extras: python-extras Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/e/extras/extras-0.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7a60d84cb661b477c41a5ea35e931ae93860af8cd259ecc0a38a32ef1ae9ffc0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7a60d84cb661b477c41a5ea35e931ae93860af8cd259ecc0a38a32ef1ae9ffc0 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 958344 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Can we proceed here? I need python-extras for other packages, eg. for python-pbr.
Created attachment 754224 [details] Patch to fix the issues from the review
for reference: SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc19.src.rpm SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-extras.spec
I've mentioned before that this package is daft as it boils down to a couple of lines. Matthias I don't see extras used in pbr 0.5.10?
(In reply to Pádraig Brady from comment #6) > I've mentioned before that this package is daft as it boils down to a couple > of lines. Daft or not, upstream ships it as a separate package, and we know of at least one package that uses it (subunit).
pbr requires testrepository, which requires subunit, which uses extras.
Well subunit had essentially a 1 line patch to avoid "extras", however I've now reverted that. This falls into the category of working hard rather than smart.
(In reply to Pádraig Brady from comment #9) > This falls into the category of working hard rather than smart. Indeed, and now we need submitter and reviewer to work hard on this. Michel, please update the review or hand over to Matthias. Thanks.
Matthias' update looks good, thanks! Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Using prebuilt rpms. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-extras [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/padraig/rhat/fedora-scm/openstack/python-extras /review-python-extras/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 6 files. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc18.noarch.rpm python3-extras-0.0.3-2.fc18.noarch.rpm python-extras.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US testtools -> test tools, test-tools, stools python3-extras.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US testtools -> test tools, test-tools, stools 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- python3-extras (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-extras (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-extras: python3-extras python-extras: python-extras MD5-sum check ------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/e/extras/extras-0.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7a60d84cb661b477c41a5ea35e931ae93860af8cd259ecc0a38a32ef1ae9ffc0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7a60d84cb661b477c41a5ea35e931ae93860af8cd259ecc0a38a32ef1ae9ffc0
Michel, because it's urgent for us, I hope you don't mind, if I take this over, somehow. Of course, I'm adding you as maintainer here. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-extras Short Description: Useful extra bits for Python Owners: mrunge salimma Branches: f19 el6
f18 would be good too. thanks
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-extras-0.0.3-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-extras-0.0.3-2.el6
python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc19
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-extras New Branches: f18 Owners: mrunge pbrady salimma
python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc18
No problem, Matthias. Apologies for the delay, was out of town.
I have to protest the way I was treated. I was the reviewer. I was not out of town or inactive. I was merely waiting for the submitter's next move. There was no reason to summarily eject me as reviewer with no notice and no apology. We were nowhere even close to the one month period specified by https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews. I am glad the package is now in Fedora, but I think I deserved better than this.
Sorry Jerry. I really didn't want you to offend you in any way. It's just that this package was blocking a bunch of stuff and I wanted to be sure it was submitted. The couple of days I think we gained was important IMHO. Please feel free to hit me up for review requests/swaps or whatever... thanks, Pádraig.
python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
python-extras-0.0.3-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.